{ "id": 2854133, "name": "John McDonald, Appellee, vs. Charles S. Risch et al.- (Park Knight's Club, Inc., Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "McDonald v. Risch", "decision_date": "1968-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 41188", "first_page": "242", "last_page": "244", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 242" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "90 Ill. App. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2899172 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/90/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2833119 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" }, { "page": "399" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0393-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 235, "char_count": 3813, "ocr_confidence": 0.802, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0124179082784348e-07, "percentile": 0.5425146408149665 }, "sha256": "0dec446dc2b9b88a5fafe18c6652c1894a7a5a5cae81873f13efaf7ca826c411", "simhash": "1:2f6e7cc87496c99b", "word_count": 630 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:11.612060+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John McDonald, Appellee, vs. Charles S. Risch et al.\u2014 (Park Knight\u2019s Club, Inc., Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice House\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe principal question presented by this appeal is whether a tavern operator can be held liable in a \u201cby\u201d theory under the Illinois Liquor Control Act for \u201can injury resulting from the direct affirmative act of an intoxicated person\u201d (Hernandez v. Diaz, 31 Ill.2d 393, 397) when the act of the intoxicated person is not tortious.\nJohn McDonald, a 19-year-old, by Ellis McDonald, his brother and next friend, brought this action in the circuit court of Winnebago County to recover damages for injuries he received when an automobile driven by Charles Risch struck him. Count I of the complaint was a common-law negligence action against Risch and count II was a statutory dramshop action against Park Knight\u2019s Club, Inc. A jury found for both defendants and in response to a special interrogatory found that Risch was not guilty of negligence which proximately caused or contributed to cause plaintiff\u2019s injury. Judgment was entered on the verdict, but after a hearing on plaintiff\u2019s post-trial motion, the court ordered a new trial only as to Park Knight\u2019s Club. Leave to appeal from this order was granted as to that defendant and the Appellate Court affirmed. (90 Ill. App. 2d 445.) We thereafter granted leave to appeal.\nHere the jury made a special finding of fact that Risch was not guilty of negligence which proximately caused or contributed to cause plaintiff\u2019s injury, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s post-trial motion as to Risch, and since plaintiff did not appeal from this order, he is now bound -by it. Plaintiff argues, nevertheless, that under our holding in Hernandez v. Diaz, 31 Ill.2d 393, it is not necessary that the act of the intoxicated person be tortious but only that it \u201chave a causal connection with the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.\u201d\nIn Hernandez the plaintiff was seated in a tavern when four intoxicated men unknown to him entered, purchased drinks, became rowdy and offensive, and were asked to leave by the tavern\u2019s guard. The four men became threatening, the guard pulled out his revolver and in the scuffle that followed a shot fired by the guard struck the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed plaintiff\u2019s complaint and the Appellate Court affirmed on the theory that in an action under the \u201cby\u201d theory the injury must be the immediate result of the act of the intoxicated person; i.e. the shot would have had to have been fired by one of the intoxicated persons and not the guard, in order for plaintiff to recover. In reversing this judgment we held that, \u201cIf an intoxicated person commits an act which has a direct causal relation to the injury of another, the injury is caused \u2018by\u2019 the intoxicated person.\u201d 31 Ill.2d 393, 399.\nIn Hernandez the question of whether the affirmative act of the intoxicated person must be tortious was not involved because the act of the intoxicated person was tortious. That case did not change the rule heretofore applied consistently by our appellate court that in an action under the \u201cby\u201d theory plaintiff\u2019s injury must be caused by a tortious act of- an intoxicated person.\nSince the plaintiff is now bound by the jury finding that Risch was not guilty of negligence which proximately caused or contributed to cause plaintiff\u2019s injury, there is nothing that could be accomplished in a new trial as to defendant Park Knight\u2019s Club. For this reason the judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice House" } ], "attorneys": [ "Klocicau, McCarthy, Schubert, Lousbert & Ellison, of Rock Island, (Robert L. Ellison, of counsel,) for appellant.", "Roszkowsici and Paddock, of Rockford, (Stanley J. Roszkoyvski, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 41188.\nJohn McDonald, Appellee, vs. Charles S. Risch et al.\u2014 (Park Knight\u2019s Club, Inc., Appellant.)\nOpinion filed November 22, 1968.\nKlocicau, McCarthy, Schubert, Lousbert & Ellison, of Rock Island, (Robert L. Ellison, of counsel,) for appellant.\nRoszkowsici and Paddock, of Rockford, (Stanley J. Roszkoyvski, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0242-01", "first_page_order": 252, "last_page_order": 254 }